Comment policy

Until such time as I come up with something approaching an official and consistent policy on comments, this is the “vibe of the thing”.

If all or most of your comment consists of name-calling and juvenile abuse, it’ll be deleted

If the comment is utterly off topic, it might be deleted, unless it sparkles with wit and intelligence

If it’s defamatory and without proof, then it’ll be deleted

If it disagrees with me, it will be welcomed in absence of contravention of the above

If it’s a complaint that your comment hasn’t been moderated, bear in mind I’m a human with a life, wife and children

If you use lots of block capitals to get all SHOUTY and angry, then it’ll get toasted

As a general rule, robust debate and a bit of banter is welcome. Telling me or someone else to go get %$#&% and such like doesn’t count. I reserve the right to be inconsistent. Extremely clever put downs may, on certain days, make it through the filter.

8 thoughts on “Comment policy”

My reading of the sentence in the AR4 draft “observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism” seems not to have been adequately dealt with by professor Sherwood as he only discounts one of a number of possible mechanisms, namely the ” such as” a GCR-cloud link.

“Here’s a recent must read article that I’d love to repost over here since it fits right into my collection. But, I don’t think this one’s in the cards. I can still post this teaser that hints at what you’ll find within Readfearn’s thorough expose’. …”

Dear Graham
I am an environmental lawyer based in Cape Town and just read your piece in the Guardian about the Great Barrier Reef. I thought you might be interested in the judgement on the Great Barrier Reef case by the International Tribunal for the Rights of Nature which you can find here: http://therightsofnature.org/great-barrier-reef-judgement-paris-tribunal/
The judgement does not have the force of law but does have a certain moral/ persuasive power due to the members of the Tribunal and the organisations backing it. The Tribunal can be viewed as a prototype of the kind of bodies we need to deal effectively with the key challenges of the 21st Century

Hi Graham. I realise that you are passionate about climate change – a term that global warming alarmists had to use when it became obvious that the earth was actually cooling.
However I seem to detect a focus on climate change deniers which is not the way to help such people understand your truth. I see that you don’t appreciate responses that denigrate you, yet you seem quick to denigrate others who fall into your classification as “deniers.”
May I suggest that you read “Aircon” by Ian Wishart – a former investigative journalist turned author. His book may assist you to see that climate change deniers may just have knowledge that climate change alarmists are often too quick to dismiss. Perhaps Senator Malcolm Roberts may not be the dimwit you paint him to be.

I thought journalism was about reporting stories with an unbiased personal agenda. Obviously that’s not your style of journalism. Your “closed mind” approach to anyone who questions ‘man made global warming’ is scarier than the opinions of Malcolm Roberts. In fact, your defensive and condescending attitude gives more credibility to the “deniers” argument as you make puerile statements like this one regarding Malcolm Roberts.
Quote –
“Roberts’ argument that science is only about “empirical evidence” might sound all sciencey to his interviewees and the lay audience. But it’s bunk. If all you rely on is “empirical evidence”, and reject modelling and analysis that uses that data, then you basically throw out large swathes of modern scientific endeavours.”
In the case of the IPCC it would seem that the preferred approach is to rely on the modelling and throw out large swathes of empirical evidence.